Social darwinism is both the belief that society has an imperative to root out and cast out "losers" and let them die, and the attempt to implement those beliefs.
Eugenics is that belief applied on the literal genetic level.
This is neither of those. Society did not at any point impel or encourage these people to take horse dewormer and destroy their balls. They did it out of free choice entirely of their own accord. You're flat out wrong.
Social darwinism is both the belief that society has an imperative to root out and cast out “losers” and let them die, and the attempt to implement those beliefs.
This idea that social darwinism only refers to applied ideas is extremely stupid. You can hold social darwinist ideas without being Hitler or some shit.
The idea that dumb people removing themselves from the gene pool being an example of darwinism is pseudoscience. Again, I'm begging you to crack open a book or at least read up social darwinism and darwinism on Wikipedia. It's fucking insane to see this type of garbage on a leftist forum.
How is it not Darwinism? Anything that results in you being removed from the gene pool is doing a Darwinism.
I am with @Mrtryfe here the amount of ignorance in this comment chain regarding Darwinism is alarming. If anything the argumentation is completely ridiculous with people bending themselves backward to justify Darwinism lol.
Like holy shit by the logic here if anything that "removes you from the gene pool" is Darwinism then driving a Tesla and having it crash instead of taking the likely inexistent public transportation is Darwinism, being a poor African child starving to death is Darwinism, being an American eating fast food and sitting on a desk all day is also Darwinism. Being a poor muslim getting a drone missile to the face? You guessed it.
The fact we are adding being a stupid chud who is sterilizing himself because he is being drawn into an anti-intellectual death cult to the list doesn't make the argument any more sound.
Are you saying humans are except from evolution and Darwinism because we live in societies?
Darwin himself didn't have a whole lot to say in regards to humanity's place within his framework on evolution, and much of that had to do with the complexity of human societies. There is no hard or fast rule to any of this, and still holds true to this day.
Are you saying humans are except from evolution and Darwinism because we live in societies?
You need to understand the selection process. It seems at first that this whole circus is "selecting" based on intelligence yes? But the reality is because we live in societies as you put it, intelligence is not the dominant factor here but rather a large combination of factors, intelligent people can do stupid things if society enforces it, just look at any religion.
Intelligence here isn't just whatever libs think of IQ but simply access to information and education. So when you think these chuds are "stupid" and so are being selected out based on some form of inherent intelligence, it will turn out you are actually selecting based on whether someone was lucky enough to go to school or have access to factual information instead of garbage.
All of the joke examples I listed were only jokes because I expect someone to understand that there is nothing related to evolution when you get a drone missile to the face or you are born as a poor African child.
Chuds deserve dunking and I have no sympathy for them, but nobody should go down the path of "this is good actualy because something something Darwinism".
unironically yes, we are evolving in a way that's very different from natural selection imperatives because we have not been tethered to them for a while (probably since the agriculture revolution)
social imperatives are by definition not natural selection, ants if anything should be considered as having social natural selection, since their common interaction does not affect their behavior over the long term, and they evolve to face natural threats, having homeless people die on the streets is simply the result of artificial society standards as to who matters, same reason why i am not purely a materialist, since ideas (or more truthfully institutions, laws...) have an actual impact in human societies, separating them from the purely material natural selection, helped by the fact we have no natural predator and medicine of course
do you know about Darwin? natural selection clearly doesn't entail social processes
now on whether ideas are material, i think the issue is around whether the material conditions lead to the ideas or if it can be vice versa sometimes, which is what i believe is increasingly true, now that everything is built on a materialist basis at the start anyways is obvious, but this is a philosophical conversation and doesn't pertain to the fact that social processes are clearly not natural selection (unless you're fash or in fash world)
natural selection is about what traits lead to higher reproduction/survival compared to other, this entails a rigid framework (selection pressures) that allow for the selection to take place over several generations, this rigidity is only possible if social processes are the reflection of genetics, see back to fash
but I can’t discount individual intelligence coming into play when you’re willing consuming horse dewormer
How are you defining intelligence here? Down to the specific viewpoint of them consuming ivermectin? Societal effects are much easier to get a handle on, so why are we speculating on something neither you and I could answer, unless we're getting really into the weeds?
Like, the wider hegemonic society is literally trying to jab you, not convince you to consume horse dewormer.
Getting a vaccine is accepted as hegemonic in the US, or even worldwide? That's news to me. Hell, there are some people getting vaccinated despite genuinely not wanting to, for various reasons.
Hegemony doesn't only apply to what the dominant ruling class wants. If nothing else, you'd need further inquiry to figure out why half the US population is dead set against the hegemony.
No, it isn't exactly what hegemony is, especially if there's a counterculture that's having a noticeable effect on people's behaviors. Putting that down to some vague definition of intelligence is ridiculous.
This is neither of those. Society did not at any point impel or encourage these people to take horse dewormer and destroy their balls. They did it out of free choice entirely of their own accord. You’re flat out wrong.
What is your definition of society? Because it seems you are equating society with government.
These chuds are all being influenced by social media, peer pressure from their social groups(online and IRL) and probably family members. To me that easily qualifies as social encouragement. To say they are doing it out of "free will" is just a lib take. People will do crazy shit things in order to remain part of a group and the consequences means there is very little actual choice here unless you think people willingly choose to suffer on purpose.
It's not social darwinism, it's just literally darwinism.
No it isn't, crack open a fucking book
Social darwinism is both the belief that society has an imperative to root out and cast out "losers" and let them die, and the attempt to implement those beliefs.
Eugenics is that belief applied on the literal genetic level.
This is neither of those. Society did not at any point impel or encourage these people to take horse dewormer and destroy their balls. They did it out of free choice entirely of their own accord. You're flat out wrong.
This idea that social darwinism only refers to applied ideas is extremely stupid. You can hold social darwinist ideas without being Hitler or some shit.
The idea that dumb people removing themselves from the gene pool being an example of darwinism is pseudoscience. Again, I'm begging you to crack open a book or at least read up social darwinism and darwinism on Wikipedia. It's fucking insane to see this type of garbage on a leftist forum.
deleted by creator
I am with @Mrtryfe here the amount of ignorance in this comment chain regarding Darwinism is alarming. If anything the argumentation is completely ridiculous with people bending themselves backward to justify Darwinism lol.
Like holy shit by the logic here if anything that "removes you from the gene pool" is Darwinism then driving a Tesla and having it crash instead of taking the likely inexistent public transportation is Darwinism, being a poor African child starving to death is Darwinism, being an American eating fast food and sitting on a desk all day is also Darwinism. Being a poor muslim getting a drone missile to the face? You guessed it.
The fact we are adding being a stupid chud who is sterilizing himself because he is being drawn into an anti-intellectual death cult to the list doesn't make the argument any more sound.
deleted by creator
Darwin himself didn't have a whole lot to say in regards to humanity's place within his framework on evolution, and much of that had to do with the complexity of human societies. There is no hard or fast rule to any of this, and still holds true to this day.
deleted by creator
You need to understand the selection process. It seems at first that this whole circus is "selecting" based on intelligence yes? But the reality is because we live in societies as you put it, intelligence is not the dominant factor here but rather a large combination of factors, intelligent people can do stupid things if society enforces it, just look at any religion.
Intelligence here isn't just whatever libs think of IQ but simply access to information and education. So when you think these chuds are "stupid" and so are being selected out based on some form of inherent intelligence, it will turn out you are actually selecting based on whether someone was lucky enough to go to school or have access to factual information instead of garbage.
All of the joke examples I listed were only jokes because I expect someone to understand that there is nothing related to evolution when you get a drone missile to the face or you are born as a poor African child.
Chuds deserve dunking and I have no sympathy for them, but nobody should go down the path of "this is good actualy because something something Darwinism".
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
unironically yes, we are evolving in a way that's very different from natural selection imperatives because we have not been tethered to them for a while (probably since the agriculture revolution)
deleted by creator
social imperatives are by definition not natural selection, ants if anything should be considered as having social natural selection, since their common interaction does not affect their behavior over the long term, and they evolve to face natural threats, having homeless people die on the streets is simply the result of artificial society standards as to who matters, same reason why i am not purely a materialist, since ideas (or more truthfully institutions, laws...) have an actual impact in human societies, separating them from the purely material natural selection, helped by the fact we have no natural predator and medicine of course
deleted by creator
do you know about Darwin? natural selection clearly doesn't entail social processes now on whether ideas are material, i think the issue is around whether the material conditions lead to the ideas or if it can be vice versa sometimes, which is what i believe is increasingly true, now that everything is built on a materialist basis at the start anyways is obvious, but this is a philosophical conversation and doesn't pertain to the fact that social processes are clearly not natural selection (unless you're fash or in fash world)
deleted by creator
natural selection is about what traits lead to higher reproduction/survival compared to other, this entails a rigid framework (selection pressures) that allow for the selection to take place over several generations, this rigidity is only possible if social processes are the reflection of genetics, see back to fash
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean, other companies do make cars that won't drive themselves into a cartoon tunnel painted on a wall.
deleted by creator
How are you defining intelligence here? Down to the specific viewpoint of them consuming ivermectin? Societal effects are much easier to get a handle on, so why are we speculating on something neither you and I could answer, unless we're getting really into the weeds?
Getting a vaccine is accepted as hegemonic in the US, or even worldwide? That's news to me. Hell, there are some people getting vaccinated despite genuinely not wanting to, for various reasons.
deleted by creator
Hegemony doesn't only apply to what the dominant ruling class wants. If nothing else, you'd need further inquiry to figure out why half the US population is dead set against the hegemony.
deleted by creator
No, it isn't exactly what hegemony is, especially if there's a counterculture that's having a noticeable effect on people's behaviors. Putting that down to some vague definition of intelligence is ridiculous.
What is your definition of society? Because it seems you are equating society with government. These chuds are all being influenced by social media, peer pressure from their social groups(online and IRL) and probably family members. To me that easily qualifies as social encouragement. To say they are doing it out of "free will" is just a lib take. People will do crazy shit things in order to remain part of a group and the consequences means there is very little actual choice here unless you think people willingly choose to suffer on purpose.
deleted by creator
Darwin Award-ism